Split native targeting rule support for semantic versioning comparisons



  • Official comment
    Kevin Li

    Hi Dean,

    From our end, we'd recommend you do version matching by using regex/matching matchers. We wrote a blog post about this topic a while ago:



    Let us know this doesn't solve your needs!



    Comment actions Permalink
  • Timothy Nance

    Hey Kevin, appreciate the reply!


    The way you mentioned is likely not a realistic option for us for two reasons:

    1. Non-engineers would definitely not be able to set these up
    2. High risk of human error
    3. Human readability is low, difficult to visually parse what version information is being checked

    If there was a product solution it would simplify the user facing configuration and remove the risk of human error.




    Comment actions Permalink
  • Markus Backman


    We are facing the same issue so even if there is possible workarounds it would make things a lot more stream lined if we would get semantic versioning comparisons.



    Comment actions Permalink
  • Nick Woodward

    I'd like to bump this up as well. We are implementing Split and having support for semantic version comparison would improve our feature flagging process significantly. Using regex is a work around that we can use but, as mentioned above, has poor readability and is prone to error.

    Comment actions Permalink
  • Daniel Merrill

    We're planning on separating major/minor/patch as separate attributes in order to maintain readability and so we do not need to rely on math that must be synced between the dashboard and the client. That said, it would be great if we had numeric targeting rules for `<` and `>` operators in addition to `>=` and `<=` to check against.

    For example, here are our rules, but I'd rather serve "off" if the version attributes are lower than given, and serve "on" by default.

    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.